Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 63 Download : 6

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Higher-Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) are an essential element in education that must be integrated into curricula and classroom assessments. In Indonesia, educational initiatives have increasingly emphasized the incorporation of HOTS into both curriculum design and assessment practices. However, prior research has primarily focused on the challenges faced by teachers in developing HOTS-based assessments and aligning their teaching with curriculum demands. This study aims to investigate how the Indonesian mathematics curriculum integrates HOTS and evaluate the alignment between the curriculum objectives and teacher-developed assessments in fostering HOTS. The study employed a descriptive qualitative approach and was conducted in two Indonesian high schools, one located in an urban area and the other in a regional setting. A total of 15 mathematics teachers from grades ten, eleven, and twelve participated in the research. Data collection methods included focus group discussions, document analysis of mathematics assessments, and semi-structured interviews. The analysis employed Anderson and Krathwohl’s Taxonomy to categorize cognitive levels. Findings reveal that the Indonesian Mathematics Curriculum predominantly emphasizes Low-Order Thinking Skills (LOTS), and teacher-developed assessments are largely aligned with these LOTS-focused objectives. Furthermore, even when curriculum indicators aim to target HOTS, teachers often struggle to design assessments that effectively evaluate students’ higher-order cognitive abilities. These findings highlight a significant gap between curriculum goals and the practical implementation of HOTS in assessments. The results provide valuable insights for curriculum developers, suggesting the need for a curriculum redesign that places greater emphasis on HOTS. Additionally, the study underscores the importance of professional development initiatives to equip teachers with the skills necessary to design and implement HOTS-based assessments. This research contributes to advancing educational practices and policies that prioritize the integration of HOTS into teaching and assessment frameworks.

Keywords

Cognitive Level Curriculum Higher Order Thinking Skills Mathematics Teachers' Assesment

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Zana, F. M., Sa’dijah, C., Susiswo, Anwar, L., & Zulnaidi, H. (2024). Curriculum and teacher assessment practices in mathematics learning: Alignment with higher order thinking skills in Indonesian secondary schools. Journal on Mathematics Education, 15(4), 1311–1334. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v15i4.pp1311-1334
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Abdullah, A. H., Abidin, N. L. Z., & Ali, M. (2015). Analysis of students’ errors in solving Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) problems for the topic of fraction. Asian Social Science, 11(21), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n21p133
  2. Adams, W. K., & Wieman, C. E. (2011). Development and validation of instruments to measure learning of expert-like thinking. International Journal of Science Education, 33(9), 1289–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.512369
  3. Ahamad, S. N. S. H., Li, H. C., Shahrill, M., & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2018). Implementation of problem-based learning in geometry lessons. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 943(1), 012008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/943/1/012008
  4. Ali, L. (2018). The design of curriculum, assessment and evaluation in higher education with constructive alignment. Journal of Education and E-Learning Research, 5(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2018.51.72.78
  5. Amzaleg, M., & Masry-Herzallah, A. (2021). Cultural dimensions and skills in the 21st century: the Israeli education system as a case study. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 30(5), 765–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2021.1873170
  6. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl Peter W Airasian, D. R., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M. C. (2001). Taxonomy for Assessing a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Abridged). Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  7. Anggraena, Y., Abdulhak, I., & Rusman, R. (2018). The development of mathematics curriculum to increase the higher order thinking skills in the 21st century era. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Science and Technology for an Internet of Things. https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.19-10-2018.2281302
  8. As’ari, A. R., Mahmudi, A., & Nuerlaelah, E. (2017). Our prospective mathematic teachers are not critical thinkers yet. Journal on Mathematics Education, 8(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.8.2.3961.145-156
  9. Barak, M., & Shakhman, L. (2008). Fostering higher-order thinking in science class: Teachers’ reflections. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 14(3), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600802006079
  10. Berg, G. Van Den. (2004). The use of assessment in the development of higher-order thinking skills. Africa Education Review, 1(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146620408566285
  11. Berisha, V., & Bytyqi, R. (2020). Types of mathematical tasks used in secondary classroom instruction. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 9(3), 751–758. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v9i3.20617
  12. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. In M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, & D. R. Krathwohl (Eds). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals; Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
  13. Brookhart, S. M. (2010). How to Assess Higher-Order Thinking Skills in Your Classroom. ASCD.
  14. Busetto, L., Wick, W., & Gumbinger, C. (2020). How to use and assess qualitative research methods. Neurological Research and Practice, 2(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42466-020-00059-z
  15. Byrne, M. (2001). Interviewing as a data collection method. AORN Journal, 74(2), 233–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-2092(06)61533-0
  16. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Sage.
  17. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage.
  18. Dahlan, D., Permana, L., & Oktariani, M. (2020). Teacher’s competence and difficulties in constructing hots instruments in economics subject. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 39(1), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v39i1.28869
  19. Darwazeh, A. N., & Branch, R. M. (2015). A revision to the revised Bloom’s taxonomy. The Annual Proceedings, 2(19), 2330–2335. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i2.2823
  20. Davies, D. J., McLean, P. F., Kemp, P. R., Liddle, A. D., Morrell, M. J., Halse, O., Martin, N. M., & Sam, A. H. (2022). Assessment of factual recall and higher-order cognitive domains in an open-book medical school examination. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 27(1), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-021-10076-5
  21. El-Hassan, K., & Baassiri, M. (2019). The alignment between the fourth grade Lebanese science curriculum and classroom assessments. Education 3-13, 47(5), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2018.1515236
  22. Firmansyah, F. F., Sa’dijah, C., Subanji, S., & Qohar, A. (2022). Characterizations of students’ metacognition in solving geometry problems through positioning group work. TEM Journal, 11(3), 1391–1398. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM113-50
  23. FitzPatrick, B., & Schulz, H. (2015). Do curriculum outcomes and assessment activities in science encourage higher order thinking? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 15(2), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2015.1014074
  24. Fulmer, G. W. (2011). Estimating critical values for strength of alignment among curriculum, assessments, and instruction. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 36(3), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998610381397
  25. Fulmer, G. W., & Polikoff, M. S. (2014). Tests of alignment among assessment, standards, and instruction using generalized linear model regression. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(3), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-014-9196-z
  26. Grant, L. W., & Gareis, C. R. (2013). Teacher-made assessments: How to connect curriculum, instruction, and student learning. In Teacher-Made Assessments: How to Connect Curriculum, Instruction, and Student Learning (2nd ed.). Eye on Education. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315855240
  27. Hadzhikoleva, S., Hadzhikolev, E., & Kasakliev, N. (2019). Using peer assessment to enhance higher order thinking skills. TEM Journal, 8(1), 242–247. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM81-34
  28. Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, N.-S., Dung, J.-J., & Yang, Y.-L. (2007). Multiple representation skills and creativity effects on mathematical problem solving using a multimedia whiteboard system. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 191–212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.10.2.191
  29. Ichwanto, M. A., Al-ansyorie, M. M., Isnandar, I., Alfianto, I., & Weifen, D. (2024). Development of TVET Teacher Professionalism in Indonesian Rural Area. Proceedings of 5th Vocational Education International Conference. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-198-2_32
  30. Istiyono, E. (2018). IT-based HOTS assessment on physics learning as the 21st century demand at senior high schools: Expectation and reality. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2014(1), 020014. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5054418
  31. Jailani, J., Sugiman, S., & Apino, E. (2017). Implementing the problem-based learning in order to improve the students’ HOTS and characters. Jurnal Riset Pendidikan Matematika, 4(2), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.21831/jrpm.v4i2.17674
  32. Kusuma, D. M., Rosidin, U., & Suyatna, A. (2017). The development of higher order thinking skill (hots) instrument assessment in physics study. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME), 7(1), 2320–2737. https://doi.org/10.9790/7388-070103XXXX
  33. Lin, W. L., & Lien, Y. W. (2013). Exploration of the relationships between retrieval-induced forgetting effects with open-ended versus closed-ended creative problem solving. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2013.05.004
  34. Lugosi, E., & Uribe, G. (2022). Active learning strategies with positive effects on students’ achievements in undergraduate mathematics education. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 53(2), 403–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1773555
  35. Madina, S., & Kardena, A. (2021). The difficulties in implementing scientific approach based on 2013 curriculum: A case study on one english teacher. Elsya: Journal of English Language Studies, 3(2), 126–133. https://doi.org/10.31849/elsya.v3i2.5794
  36. Marsh, C. (2016). Marsh’s becoming a teacher (N. Poole, K. Millar, & J. Tyrrell, Eds.; 6th ed.). Pearson Australia.
  37. Marsitin, R., Sa’dijah, C., Susiswo, S., & Chandra, T. D. (2022). Creative mathematical reasoning process of climber students in solving higher order thinking skills geometry problems. TEM Journal, 11(4), 1877–1886. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM114-56
  38. McHugh, L., Kelly, A. M., Fisher, J. H., & David Burghardt, M. (2021). Graphing as a means to improve middle school science learning and mathematics-related affective domains. Research in Science Education, 51(2), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9796-6
  39. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  40. Munroe, L. (2015). The open-ended approach framework. European Journal of Educational Research, 4(3), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.4.3.97
  41. Murtafiah, W., Sa’dijah, C., Chandra, T. D., & Susiswo, S. (2019). Decision making of the winner of the national student creativity program in designing ICT-based learning media. TEM Journal, 8(3), 1039–1045. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM83-49
  42. Murtafiah, W., Sa’dijah, C., Chandra, T. D., & Susiswo. (2020). Exploring the types of problems task by mathematics teacher to develop students’ HOTS. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2215(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0000656
  43. Musa, H. M., & Yamat, H. (2021). Exploring primary school teachers’ challenges in incorporating higher order thinking skills (hots) in English classroom. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 10(2), 665–1045. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v10-i2/9970
  44. Nadjafikhah, M., Yaftian, N., & Bakhshalizadeh, S. (2012). Mathematical creativity: Some definitions and characteristics. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.056
  45. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. NCTM,Inc.
  46. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM,Inc.
  47. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematics success for all. NCTM,Inc.
  48. Olivares, D., Lupiáñez, J. L., & Segovia, I. (2021). Roles and characteristics of problem solving in the mathematics curriculum: A review. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(7), 1079–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1738579
  49. Podkhodova, N., Snegurova, V., Stefanova, N., Triapitsyna, A., & Pisareva, S. (2020). Assessment of mathematics teachers’ professional competence. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(3), 477–500. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.3.11848.477-500
  50. Pratiwi, N., & Mustadi, A. (2021). Hots-based learning in 2013 curriculum: Is it suitable?. JPI (Jurnal Pendidikan Indonesia), 10(1), 128–135. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpi-undiksha.v10i1.22781
  51. Pulungan, M., Toybah, T., & Suganda, V. A. (2021). Development of HOTS-based 2013 curriculum assessment instruments in elementary school. Journal of Teaching and Learning in Elementary Education (JTLEE), 4(1), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.33578/jtlee.v4i1.7858
  52. Retnawati, H., Hadi, S., & Chandra Nugraha, A. (2016). Vocational high school teachers’ difficulties in implementing the assessment in curriculum 2013 in Yogyakarta province of Indonesia. International Journal of Instruction, 9(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2016.914a
  53. Rizki, R. N., Mustadi, A., & Wangid, M. N. (2022). Evaluation of the implementation of assessment in higher order thinking skills oriented learning 2013 curriculum in elementary schools. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 14(3), 4363–4370. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v14i3.757
  54. Sa’dijah, C., Murtafiah, W., Anwar, L., Nurhakiki, R., & Cahyowati, E. T. D. (2021). Teaching higher-order thinking skills in mathematics classrooms: Gender differences. Journal on Mathematics Education, 12(1), 159–180. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.12.1.13087.159-180
  55. Sa’dijah, C., Qohar, Abd., & Anwar, L. (2015). Asesmen dalam pembelajaran matematika yang mendukung sikap, pengetahuan, dan keterampilan matematika [Assessment in mathematics learning that supports mathematical attitudes, knowledge, and skills]. UM Penerbit & Percetakan.
  56. Schulz, H., & Fitzpatrick, B. (2016). Teachers’ understandings of critical and higher order thinking and what this means for their teaching and assessments. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 62(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v62i1.56168
  57. Seman, S. C., Yusoff, W. M. W., & Embong, R. (2017). Teachers challenges in teaching and learning for higher order thinking skills (hots) in primary school. International Journal of Asian Social Science, 7(7), 534–545. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1.2017.77.534.545
  58. Shahrill, M., Putri, R. I. I., Zulkardi, & Prahmana, R. C. I. (2018). Processes involved in solving mathematical problems. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1952(1), 020019. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5031981
  59. Sudaryono, Rahardja, U., Aini, Q., Isma Graha, Y., & Lutfiani, N. (2019). Validity of test instruments. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1364(1), 012050. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1364/1/012050
  60. Suherman, S., & Vidákovich, T. (2022). Assessment of mathematical creative thinking: A systematic review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101019
  61. Suwarno, R., Randall, E. V., & Hite, J. M. (2019). Alignment of classroom instruction with Indonesian national standards. Indonesian Research Journal in Education |IRJE|, 3(1), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.22437/irje.v3i1.5611
  62. Suyanto, S. (2018). The implementation of the scientific approach through 5Ms of the revised curriculum 2013 in Indonesia. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 37(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.21831/cp.v37i1.18719
  63. Syahida, H., & Dewi, L. (2023). Identifying 21st-century skills in the “Kurikulum Merdeka” at the elementary level numeracy aspect: A literature review. International Conference on Elementary Education, 5(1), 308–314. http://proceedings.upi.edu/index.php/icee/article/view/3119
  64. Thompson, T. (2008). Mathematics teachers’ interpretation of higher-order thinking in Bloom’s taxonomy. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(2), 96–109. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/221
  65. Thornhill-Miller, B., Camarda, A., Mercier, M., Burkhardt, J. M., Morisseau, T., Bourgeois-Bougrine, S., Vinchon, F., El-Hayek, S., Augereau-Landais, M., Mourey, F., Feybesse, C., Sundquist, D., & Lubart, T. (2023). Creativity, critical thinking, communication, and collaboration: Assessment, certification, and promotion of 21st century skills for the future of work and education. Journal of Intelligence, 11(3), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence11030054
  66. Troia, G. A., Olinghouse, N. G., Zhang, M., Wilson, J., Stewart, K. A., Mo, Y., & Hawkins, L. (2018). Content and alignment of state writing standards and assessments as predictors of student writing achievement: An analysis of 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress data. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 835–864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9816-3
  67. Verdina, R., Gani, A., & Sulastri. (2018). Improving students’ higher order thinking skills in thermochemistry concept using worksheets based on 2013 curriculum. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1088(1), 012105. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1088/1/012105
  68. Viseu, F., Martins, P. M., & Leite, L. (2020). Prospective primary school teachers’ activities when dealing with mathematics modelling tasks. Journal on Mathematics Education, 11(2), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.11.2.7946.301-318
  69. Widana, W. I. (2020). The effect of digital literacy on the ability of teachers to develop hots-based assessment. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1503(1), 012045. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1503/1/012045
  70. Wilcox, S. K., & Lanier, P. E. (2000). Using assessment to reshape mathematics teaching: A casebook for teachers and teacher educators, curriculum and staff development specialists. Routledge.
  71. Yeung, S. yin S. (2015). Conception of teaching higher order thinking: Perspectives of Chinese teachers in Hong Kong. Curriculum Journal, 26(4), 553–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1053818
  72. Zana, F. M., Sa’dijah, C., & Susiswo, S. (2022). LOTS to HOTS: How do mathematics teachers improve students’ higher-order thinking skills in the class? International Journal of Trends in Mathematics Education Research, 5(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.33122/ijtmer.v5i3.143
  73. Zana, F. M., Sa’dijah, C., & Susiswo. (2024a). Mathematics teachers’ obstacles in aligning cognitive levels of the assessment and curriculum to develop HOTS for high school students. AIP Conference Proceedings, 3049(1), 030026. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0195402
  74. Zana, F. M., Sa’dijah, C., & Susiswo. (2024b). The cognitive alignment of mathematics teachers’ assessments and its curriculum. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 13(3), 1561–1575. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v13i3.26814
  75. Zulfikar, T. (2018). The making of Indonesian education: An overview on empowering Indonesian teachers. Journal of Indonesian Social Sciences and Humanities, 2, 13–39. https://doi.org/10.14203/jissh.v2i0.19